Template talk:Overwatch

Requested move 17 June 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   04:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Overwatch → Template:Overwatch (video game) – The video game isn't the only topic on Overwatch. The template should be moved accordingly.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   09:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- I see it as highly unlikely any of the other topics named "Overwatch" will potentially have any sort of template dedicated to them. That essentially makes this template the WP:PTOPIC of template topics. --Izno (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Izno. It's not like there's another template that has a better claim. -- ferret (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why Heroes of the Storm?
I was wondering why this Blizzard title specifically is listed, seeing asits article doesn't have the template andit doesn't seem any more related to this IP than other Blizzard games. Am I missing something? ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Tracer is a hero in HotS, would be my guess. I suspect others will be added over time as well. As to why its not in other templates... just no one has done it I suspect. -- ferret (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

OWL & WC order
, where is the consensus that chronological order is preferred in navboxes? The OWL being "more important" than the WC is not subjective at all. The OWL has its own navbox with twelve child articles and endless sources. The WC was small potatoes in comparison, less than a fourth of the viewership and a fraction of the coverage, not to mention a fraction of the money. czar 03:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not debating if one is more important than the other, but it's always been the presented style I've seen in navboxes regarding things that can be objectively listed in chronological order. Ask yourself that if the OWC had an main article two years, would you have still moved it below the OWL for the same reasons? That's my only issue with it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The precedent I've observed with navboxes is to put the most important elements first. If all of the elements are weighted equally, then it reverts to chronological or alphabetical. I think that the League is a bigger deal than the Cup by every conceivable measure, no? There is so much more coverage for the League, even with its shorter lifespan. czar  03:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the OWC being less important/notable, but as that is technically subjective (unless we count the number of sources or something?), I have to ask what the line for simply settling on chronological order (which can't be debated) is. I suppose this is more of a general navbox question. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of Seagull in "Esports players" section
I reckon that Seagull should be removed from this category in the template, as he is retired from the Dallas Fuel and is a full-time streamer, not an Overwatch Esports player. Would be happy to make the change if this seems alright. - OliverEastwood (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Seagull is overwhelmingly known in reliable, secondary sources for streaming Overwatch, regardless of whether he continues to compete professionally, hence the association. czar  14:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)